Judicial activism, a staple of the American court system, has long been under fire for the principle of its design. Allowing crucial decisions to be left to the whim of several select persons is a shaky method of managing the lives of millions. Many will argue that judicial activism, by its nature, is biased, gives too much power to single people, and promotes and helps crime.
             Judges have final say in important court cases. They hold sway in a criminal's life or death, or can opt to let a perpetrator go free. They interpret laws, and perhaps most importantly, determine the constitutionality of controversial legislature. Judges rulings are largely based on personal philosophy and opinion. The agendas of judges are examined almost as closely as those of politicians. Many see this as a flawed system. Theoretically, a law or practice may be constitutional one year, whereas it may be perfectly legal in another. Numerous people deem it wrong that judges can seemingly "change" the Constitution. It is only the judges who change, not the document our forefathers penned. Presidents and Congress choose the judges who will make these rulings. In fact, presidents often campaign their plans for the court, as Nixon did when he said he would appoint judges who weren't so "soft on crime" (Connolly, 1). This leads to the possibility of an extremely biased court. "The President, with a bare majority of the Senate, may appoint to the position anyone he chooses. The entire process requires the concurrence of a mere fifty-two individuals" (O'Scannlain, 1). Fairly easily, the President can select judges who will rule in his favor
             unconditionally. This is not only shady but potentially harmful. Retired Judge Robert Bork said, "The liberal elite will stop at nothing to impose its moral and legal framework on the rest of society, and will even use foreign courts, multinational treaties and international
             ...